DoomWrath wrote:I asked specifically for you to be objective. Instead I received no objective feedback on what is wrong with the map.

maybe read the topic again? you also literally repeated the objective issues in the map. crossfiring is an issue that this map reinforces and allows for exploitation due to its open design. have you received objective feedback on what's so good about the map from those 2300+ matches whose opinions you deem more correct because they have more people yet?

many people moan and whine, asserting that this map is popular and think it's fine to dismiss any claim or point because of it. you think anyone feels like mentioning fixes when the only answer is "nah messing with this map will kill the game"? there's a few suggestions in this topic that not everyone is agreeing upon if that wasn't obvious enough. popularity and fear of this game's sudden death are two big and flawed reasons a compromise or suggestion hasn't come through yet. some fixes are also completely obvious; crossfiring for example can be fixed simply by breaking sightlines and adding more cover along said sightlines. adding a tunnel or extra lane provides a new route that isn't so open and so forth. thinking isn't that hard. this isn't rocket science that even common sense solutions have to be elaborated in detail

where are your suggestions/fixes for this map by the way? considering you have a post outlining the issues you identified, you can at least contribute towards mitigating those issues rather than expecting everyone else to do the work for you before complaining that no one is doing that. if no one else, at least you or some other staff member take the helm and offer something if you want to invest in this topic.

DoomWrath wrote:Map seems fair to both sides

that's an opinion. how are you going to complain that you're getting opinions while you yourself are pushing opinions?

DoomWrath wrote:just because you dislike that gameplay doesn't mean may others don't like it too

the opposite is equally true if you want to go this route. just because you like that gameplay doesn't mean many others like it too.

DoomWrath wrote:does not have major glitches anyone has brought up

because there are no major glitches that are a significant problem. again, reading through the topic clearly highlights the actual concern people have. the main issue is that this map's design greatly encourages crossfiring and exploiting of the game's "infinite firing" mechanic to farm easy kills off of people. if the map was more closed or had disrupted sightlines, this wouldn't be an issue. the design was clearly meant to take advantage of the game's weapon mechanics fully which needs to be kept in check.

DoomWrath wrote:is immensely popular still

give this popularity thing a rest already. there's a reason this map is popular in the first place and it's not because the map "seems fair". in fact it's clearly the opposite as a majority of this topic is suggesting. hypothetically spawning in the midst of a crossmap battle and dying as soon as you spawn hardly seems fair. the map being an easy ticket for people to farm kills without effort while other maps design-wise naturally demand more skill for players to do the same thing also doesn't seem fair. it devalues the point and existence of those other maps because everyone can just go to realwar. if all of the other maps require more of a time and skill investment to get to the same place then realwar shouldn't exist as a shortcut. it's a double standard

just because the map is popular doesn't make popularity the ultimate shutdown argument to lazily rely on. in fact i can argue that popular maps like this are the reason other maps aren't popular, which is more harmful for a game that has a lot to offer than just one small piece of the game being kept in check. fixing realwar's flaws keeps things consistent and provides more room for other maps to exist as alternatives as they should in the first place. keeping realwar as is defeats the entire point of multiple approved maps if one map is clearly more "superior" than the rest. if people cannot handle change, then they don't belong here. games grow naturally and metas do and have to change at some point, with or without them. they can sit out if they have a problem with that or they can remake realwar to fit their own gameplay desires if they really love the map that much

DoomWrath wrote:I see zero reason to remove it at this time, and very few if any modifications seem necessary to make.

that conclusion is entirely based off an opinion you made. you know, something you were complaining about because everyone else apparently was making one.

wreak wrote:You're last point saying that a map is popular so we should keep it approved shows how insignificant requirements really are.

popularity itself is a really weak argument. people asserting that position as a counterpoint refuse to accept it because numbers > facts apparently. anyone, including the staff, pushing that reasoning shouldn't be listened to unless their point has weight to it but idk how you can have weight to a fallacy in the first place

Here are your solutions to the "Realwar Problem". Pick whichever suits you best.

People who don't like the map: Don't play the map. There are many others to play.

People who want the map to be different and propose adding alternative routes, tunnels, or ways around: Play Firetiger/Tehswordninja/Nexir's versions of the map instead of X Death's.

People who like the map: Require no major changes. I've looked at the map source, and there are no problems with wall overlap, vastly uneven sides, or some kind of "base" or extra cover for one team but not the other.

where are your suggestions/fixes for this map by the way? considering you have a post outlining the issues you identified, you can at least contribute towards mitigating those issues rather than expecting everyone else to do the work for you before complaining that no one is doing that. if no one else, at least you or some other staff member take the helm and offer something if you want to invest in this topic.

Burden of solution rests on the people who tell us there's a problem. Personally, I don't mind the map and understand why people do and don't like it, but objectively it is not a bad map and so I don't think it needs to be removed or have the point or atmosphere of the map changed (open "no-man's ground" between two pieces of cover). There are over 200 alternative approved maps if you dislike x death-realwar. The only seemingly unfair part of the map is spawning into crossfire and instant spawn-killing, to which I have already discussed solutions.

DoomWrath wrote:People who don't like the map: Don't play the map. There are many others to play.

I don't think you have understood this from any posts, which makes this whole discussion go nowhere and will make us repeat ourselves all the time.

We don't dislike real war.

We want it out of competitive play, because it doesn't have anything about it that rewards skill, which makes it a cheap route allowing users to exploit the map.

Disapproving it isn't gonna kill the game, they can still play it in custom maps.

phsc wrote:WHY ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT REALISM IN A FUTURISTIC 2D FLASH SCROLL SHOOTER THAT HAS ALIENS AND UNREALISTIC UNHOLDABLE GUNS AND REGENERATION AND MANY OTHER THINGS, LOSTMYDOLLAR/JASON EDEN PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A REALISTIC GAME AND STOP TRYING TO TURN IT INTO ONE BECAUSE IT WONT

I've had a long play session on a slightly modified version of x death-realwar in DM, TDM, and Co-Op modes. You can try it with ID "map-realwar" - I don't fully understand why people get so worked up about it being noncompetitive and cheap, it plays pretty similarly to a wide range of other approved maps. To me and others playing, it was no harder or easier to get kills, deaths, or a normal KD ratio than many other more recent approved maps - of course this can't be fully proven because people play differently.

silverteen11 wrote:

DoomWrath wrote:People who don't like the map: Don't play the map. There are many others to play.

I don't think you have understood this from any posts, which makes this whole discussion go nowhere and will make us repeat ourselves all the time.

We don't dislike real war.

We want it out of competitive play, because it doesn't have anything about it that rewards skill, which makes it a cheap route allowing users to exploit the map.

Disapproving it isn't gonna kill the game, they can still play it in custom maps.

Are "skills" not what you need to have success in Realwar? Does it not take "skills" to plan and execute a de-camp manoeuvre on somebody sitting in one of the towers and denying access to the middle ground?

When playing the map, most players were moving about and taking points, the players that sat and spammed got marginally better KD ratios until they were de-camped and replaced with the victor, who then advanced their KD ratio until they again were knocked out. OICW rifles are a big upgrade from CS-RC rifles in terms of removing crossfire spam, and now with no spawns in the central "death zone", you have many less unnecessary deaths due to spawn-killing. The trigger to add guns on spawn has been implemented for longer than thought, so I wonder how many people in this thread are talking about the map without having played it recently? I know that the matches started number hasn't gone up in the past week (2318) so everyone moaning about the map hasn't even touched it beyond gazing at the preview...

Doom I was in the match you were playing, it's still easy af to get kills from the towers. But the modified version removes the chances of you dying from crossfire since you can take more covers and move around in the water.

If you do use the map-realwar to replace the current xd real war, i'll be fine with that. You atleast decided to make some change instead of ignoring the map, its mutual for me.

1.) Anyone that's more concerned about the popularity of this map rather than the fact this map has obvious flaws automatically has no place in this discussion, and I personally don't care who it is. Popularity's a worthless argument and it doesn't have a place here.

2.) For those of you claiming that unapproving this map will kill this game, go ahead and prove it. You have no precedent to even make that claim based off of. Until that happens, this argument is useless and worthless.

DoomWrath wrote:When playing the map, most players were moving about and taking points, the players that sat and spammed got marginally better KD ratios until they were de-camped and replaced with the victor, who then advanced their KD ratio until they again were knocked out.

This is completely anecdotal. You can't pass this off as valid evidence or justification. Not to mention you were using a modified map which doesn't represent the issue entirely which just skews your own conclusion. I could play the map in the most backwards way possible just to suggest a counterpoint.

I just ran through the original realwar by myself and it doesn't take a brain to see that this map has glaring issues. Even from the preview alone you can see that the map is way too open. The OICW is barely any different from the CS-RC or whatever weapon was there before so replacing the main weapon on the map with the OICW barely solves the problem. The OICW still has a decent enough fire rate to consistently lay down crossmap firing at a good rate. The spraying is less mindless to do but anyone that knows this map's layout can simply spam in and out of the bases with ease because the OICW is way more accurate so spraying is still very well an issue.

The entire center part of the map beyond the bases is entirely open. The bases themselves have cover and are more closed. Anyone on the outside lacks protection of any kind which is what encourages the spraying issue in the first place. It's an easy killing method. The sniper rifles make it easy to track enemies so all players need to do is spray in the general direction the enemy is at. Those on the outside have no method of protection except to fire back which, if it wasn't obvious enough, makes their position known and makes the campers' work easier.

Literally no cover exists. None at all. All of the cover is compacted into the bases where people spray from. It's harder to kill someone behind cover as opposed to killing someone out in the open. With a height advantage from the bases as well, headshots are easier to land (and the OICW is deadly with headshots at 130 HP). Again, this makes things way too easy. In my screenshot, I put a box besides the character to show how the cover should be like. It should at the minimum go up to a character's waist. This provides protection for those out in the open and closes the gap between those in the base and those outside. There's equal opportunity to land a kill and it's possible to counter campers this way.

DoomWrath wrote:I don't fully understand why people get so worked up about it being noncompetitive and cheap

I don't even understand why you don't see the problem. I don't even understand your argument, period, and calling that an argument really is a stretch. It's noncompetitive because not everyone has an equal footing, especially in DM and TDM, to get kills. The bases are a luxury that feeds the spraying problem. Anyone lucky enough to hold down the base only needs to worry about the open area and other players trying to take over the base. The latter is extremely easy to counter because the OICW's penetration is laughable most of the time and it's easy to catch sight of anyone entering from the bottom and quickly get headshots. The cover at the base also hinders mobility of anyone rushing forward from the front of the base because the cover is simply in the way, thus it's easy to spot someone attacking from the front because the design simply doesn't let you just walk right in from the front.

Personally the cover at the base needs to be extended down the lane instead of the center part being an open field. Cover at that level should be more prevalent and spread out. This makes spraying even more ineffective but still a possible strategy to fall back on (because weapon mechanics always allow this). Even an extra lane guarantees that people don't have to rush into the open areas in order to reach either end of the map. That alone will grant them more of a chance to successfully take down someone that's set up shop in one of the bases.

Even map-realwar in my opinion is also a hashed and lazy attempt to cover up the issues. While there are platforms to protect those underwater, water itself is already a natural defense. Projectiles slow down automatically so it's easier to avoid those projectiles. Breaking sightlines to the water isn't so much a solution. Breaking sightlines above the water is the real priority. The flow of movement is still quick above water so players that want to quickly rush from either end of the map still have to risk dying in an open area unless they go into the water which hinders their mobility somewhat. I have no idea why it's next to impossible for most people defending this map's design for whatever reason to accept that this is a problem that's encouraged to exist in greater volumes than normal. Standing here in map-realwar isn't any different than standing in the same spot in the original. You can't even tell the two apart. Anyone above water is still unlucky and has the same chances of dying. What this version did was include breathing room but at the wrong spot.

People who don't like the map: Don't play the map. There are many others to play.

This sort of logic can fit perfectly with the whole "unapproving this map means the game will die" argument which I think is just as weightless as the "popularity" argument. If the easiest map is unapproved, then people will just move to the second easiest map there is. This is how meta strategies work and it's natural for people to do this. People have already said that the map can still exist in custom maps if unapproving happens to be the final verdict. Unapproving won't wipe this map out of existence despite what people arguing this point frame it as.

So here are your solutions to the "unapproval problem." Pick whichever suits you best.

People who're afraid unapproving this map will kill the game: keep the map as is and let the issues stay in the air. We can have this discussion forever if you like. Or you can change the map and make a compromise that fixes the issues but still have realwar approved. After seeing this excuse of a logical discussion, I doubt the concept of a compromise exists in many of the people here (then again, I'm in this seemingly closed-minded community after all). This is not an all-or-nothing ordeal here.

People who're so concerned with how popular this map is and the approval status of this map: take a minute to think about the nonsense you just decided to say then come back with something logical to put on the table. Right now that argument is worthless and will forever be worthless. Stop pushing a logical fallacy just to try to earn some participation points or to create some backwards logic point. Yeah, the map's popular. We get it. What's your point? There's a reason this map became popular in the first place. If that reason isn't obvious to you, no one should be paying attention to anything you say afterwards.

DoomWrath wrote:People who want the map to be different and propose adding alternative routes, tunnels, or ways around: Play Firetiger/Tehswordninja/Nexir's versions of the map instead of X Death's.

The maps you want to suggest as alternatives don't have the luxury of being approved. In fact I'd contend that this isn't helpful. You're just running away from the problem by using these alternatives as a red herring to move people away from the original realwar and try to satisfy them without putting in the effort to fix the map itself which would create the same effect and achieve better results. Believe it or not, some people do like the concept of realwar but don't like its current execution. A quick read-through along with some basic reading comprehension should be telling you that. I think even that might be expecting too much at this point judging from the posts I read in the topic.

Approved maps are meant to be competitive. It's why they're approved in the first place. The original realwar isn't as competitive as recent maps. The alternatives may be but they lack official competitive status until further notice. People who do want realwar approved but fixed have to deal with this flawed iteration in the meantime. Either replace the original realwar with one of those maps (yeah right), approve one of the alternatives as well (like that'll ever happen), fix realwar like everyone's repeatedly been trying to say (like this'll ever happen either), or unapprove realwar until it's more competitive to co-exist with other approved maps (like this too will ever happen either). Right now there's an imbalance between the competitiveness of realwar's design and the design of modern maps. To me, even map-realwar currently isn't good enough. It's lazy if anything. I could come up with a design better than whatever this sad inadequate version is supposed to be.

The point is being missed that not all of the maps need to be maximum Level 9000 in "competitiveness", whatever you define that is. That's why it's on the approved list - it's fair to both teams, every player has the same chance to do better or worse depending on skills and tactics, and these maps that have good (trigger warning) popularity among MP players are ones more likely to keep and hold people in Ranked/Approved matches rather than giving up and lurking a gunshop. Getting kills shouldn't be limited to maps that are above "X" level of complexity. That's how we've gone from very simple, basic, fun maps in 2011 (albeit with very basic and often broken map making) to lots of fairly generic arenas with only coloured backgrounds to set them apart.

At least you've actually provided some more specific problem areas than just repeating "spam" and "no skill", so thank you for that. The main problem with making radical changes is keeping the main "feel" and purpose of the map intact - one route from red to blue is a really big bit of the map and without it, it's just the same as the other alternatives - and if people wanted to play versions with more routes, they'd play the ones with more routes. Players who just want to mess about on realwar are going to join any of the four.

Hikarikaze wrote:The maps you want to suggest as alternatives don't have the luxury of being approved.

Hikarikaze wrote:approve one of the alternatives as well (like that'll ever happen)

They've been approved for long enough...

Some solutions to reducing spam in the crossfire zone have been discussed on discord - changing the angle of attack to reduce fire into the water:Laser to reduce the angle of firing into water: http://prntscr.com/jrem60Pushing back the second floor: http://prntscr.com/jremc4

Hikarikaze wrote:The cover at the base also hinders mobility of anyone rushing forward from the front of the base because the cover is simply in the way, thus it's easy to spot someone attacking from the front because the design simply doesn't let you just walk right in from the front.

Personally the cover at the base needs to be extended down the lane instead of the center part being an open field. Cover at that level should be more prevalent and spread out.

Something else that might limit spam angles and reduce the effectiveness of base camping is thickening the walls at the front of the bases to limit fire angles more: http://prntscr.com/jretul - but this might have the negative impact of making people in the base even harder to kill.

This is something I'll implement on map-realwar and test tomorrow.

Hikarikaze wrote:To me, even map-realwar currently isn't good enough. It's lazy if anything. I could come up with a design better than whatever this sad inadequate version is supposed to be.

Do it then. If it's workable, in the spirit of the map (blah blah blah, you know the drill) it'll be implemented.

Topic Bump: "map-realwar" has been updated with some measures to stop spam in the centre corridor.- Towers have been moved back 200px to prevent frontal cover hindering advances into enemy towers- Towers have been redesigned to greatly limit angles of fire into the central corridor- Towers have been topped with a killing laser to prevent camping there- Towers have been given a rear window to reduce cover for people camping in towers- A slightly more complicated central cover piece has been added

lostmydollar wrote:Dude why the hell did you disapprove the original map? Oh my god

lol expect unranked/ranked servers to have much less players.

unranked isn't going to change at all. No one plays x d-realwar in unapproved map section.

Also ranked is very much dead to begin with. Removing this map would not change entire game at all.

If logic is used, which other map besides realwar gain 14+ players in a full match each day? Since no realwar, will we ever see a 16 player match again? Probably next month, for 28 seconds and have the match die out quickly.

Star Fox McCloud wrote:If logic is used, which other map besides realwar gain 14+ players in a full match each day? Since no realwar, will we ever see a 16 player match again? Probably next month, for 28 seconds and have the match die out quickly.

now other than a 16 player match of realwar we will have two stryde sniper matches one full and another one almost full with maybe some people playing some random map like some rails rays and maybe even arena i prefer the later than a lot of peopl in x death-realwar because that map is indeed spam war, now the remake is actually great, and i had fun playing it, unlike the original, ofc it wont have as many stupid guests spamming, but its actually a playable map that doesnt suck, and i prefer having two stryde snipers and a decent arena map other than a trash spammy shit

Star Fox McCloud wrote:If logic is used, which other map besides realwar gain 14+ players in a full match each day? Since no realwar, will we ever see a 16 player match again? Probably next month, for 28 seconds and have the match die out quickly.

now other than a 16 player match of realwar we will have two stryde sniper matches one full and another one almost full with maybe some people playing some random map like some rails rays and maybe even arena i prefer the later than a lot of peopl in x death-realwar because that map is indeed spam war, now the remake is actually great, and i had fun playing it, unlike the original, ofc it wont have as many stupid guests spamming, but its actually a playable map that doesnt suck, and i prefer having two stryde snipers and a decent arena map other than a trash spammy shit

Sniper maps are dominating the servers, along with the railwars addicts. much less players than before. usually around 40 players in unranked, now it cant touch 18, which are mostly 1 shot maps

lostmydollar wrote:Dude why the hell did you disapprove the original map? Oh my god

Not only that, the original map ID leads to the reworked version on the completely unethical "map" account. Free LDR for an account completely skewing the BCLD list by unnecessarily taking up a spot and the original mapmaker loses a map technically

Now's a good time to see how taking the original realwar out affects the game in the short and long term imo. I imagine the new version isn't doing so great just because it's not the same anymore but the staff will find a way to spin 17 matches started as a "good thing"

Eek, here comes a blogpost. Just my 2c looking at some of the shitstorm here ~

Star Fox McCloud wrote:

phsc wrote:

Star Fox McCloud wrote:If logic is used, which other map besides realwar gain 14+ players in a full match each day? Since no realwar, will we ever see a 16 player match again? Probably next month, for 28 seconds and have the match die out quickly.

now other than a 16 player match of realwar we will have two stryde sniper matches one full and another one almost full with maybe some people playing some random map like some rails rays and maybe even arena i prefer the later than a lot of peopl in x death-realwar because that map is indeed spam war, now the remake is actually great, and i had fun playing it, unlike the original, ofc it wont have as many stupid guests spamming, but its actually a playable map that doesnt suck, and i prefer having two stryde snipers and a decent arena map other than a trash spammy shit

Sniper maps are dominating the servers, along with the railwars addicts. much less players than before. usually around 40 players in unranked, now it cant touch 18, which are mostly 1 shot maps

No realwar? It's still there, just has been improved. I doubt that's enough to put off the people who play realwar - who let's face it, are usually 9-12 year olds on potato PCs who just want to mow shit down. (Hang on, isn't that not the target audience for flash games to begin with...?)

I agree with phsc, if more people get bored of realwar and move to other maps, that's better than them otherwise sitting in a spam-war. But people play the maps they like, is that a crime? Must they play the maps only you approve of rather than stryde-sniper? Maybe they like stryde-sniper because it's consistent, simple, and easy-ish, and that's not to mention railwars. They've been a PB2 thing since 2011.

Hikarikaze wrote:

lostmydollar wrote:Dude why the hell did you disapprove the original map? Oh my god

Not only that,

Hang on a second, weren't you the one advocating for Realwar to be removed and disapproved? Why are you now hating on disapproval of it? Don't like the new version, fair enough. It's concept is kinda trashy in my opinion, but it's overall a perfectly fair map and deserves approval more than the old one. Even the map's new description says its a work in progress and they'll keep updating it. (Maybe that means it's trash if it needs so much work? Maybe just means the staff here care enough to try to make everyone happy, although I think that's kinda futile)...

Still, stick to your guns and don't flip flop between wanting it removed, wanting it fixed, wanting it to stay approved. You asked for changes in one of your previous posts on this topic, they seemed to have added the kinds of things you brought up, the map now doesn't have that big spamfest in the middle anymore, the towers aren't campy anymore, there's plenty of cover and almost a second route through the water. Is that not what you asked for?

Hikarikaze wrote:...the original map ID leads to the reworked version on the completely unethical "map" account. Free LDR for an account completely skewing the BCLD list by unnecessarily taking up a spot and the original mapmaker loses a map technically

Let's be real, you're really getting worked up that the staff use a special account for that purpose rather than boosting their own LDRs off fixed updated and improved versions of ancient maps? And come on, skewing the entire level devs list? It bumped whoever is at #200 down off the list, which at 12.75 LDR isn't exactly the biggest achievement in the world. Sure it'd be better off if the account had a fixed LDR of 0, or 5, or 10, or whatever number makes you happy, but it's not this "ethical problem". Admins, maybe look into this <---

Hikarikaze wrote:Now's a good time to see how taking the original realwar out affects the game in the short and long term imo. I imagine the new version isn't doing so great just because it's not the same anymore but the staff will find a way to spin 17 matches started as a "good thing"

I know you're just stirring shit up, but 17 matches started isn't bad for like 3 days given the dire state of MP, though you couldn't hope to draw a conclusion this early. My expectation is longtime realwar fans will move off as the map isn't a shitfest of spam anymore, but 90% of unranked realwar players will just continue to play as soon as they see a match or ID named "realwar", no matter the updates to it.

TBH I feel like I've missed a lot of stuff even reading through this topic. Lostmydollar, Hikarikaze, Phsc, Starfox, you seem very opinionated on this. What would you have done?

Yes lol move on to other maps. You mean sniper and RAILWARS maps? Yeah sure lets go back to 2012-2015 when they game was dying cause snipers and rails was raping the servers all the time. One shot maps here we come! Can't wait for more pp hogging and less players playing. Along with laggers quiting.

It's too late here for me to formulate my opinion into this mess right now, but I'd like say that Felinwe is right in saying that one account with an artificially high LDR is better than giving it to staff members for their personal LDR gains. Especially since all the maps on that account are currently my reworks. It'd be far from fair for me to have that much LDR boost especially when I have no current approved maps anyway.

I have set a restricted map up on the "map" account, which will automatically draw the LDR down to 0 over time, in theory. Not sure if it will counteract multiple approved maps. The map account is already special in certain ways, so it might be possible to have it exempted from ranking lists too.

Felinwe wrote:Hang on a second, weren't you the one advocating for Realwar to be removed and disapproved?

I never jump straight to advocating for removing a map as a first option when making changes is within the realm of possibility. You yourself say this too:

Felinwe wrote:You asked for changes in one of your previous posts on this topic

So as much as I would love to "hang on a second," what you read and what I said were different. I never directly or outright advocated for removing the map as well as disapproving the map without providing alternative solutions.

Felinwe wrote:Even the map's new description says its a work in progress and they'll keep updating it.

What's your point? A work in progress can still be criticized or disliked, although it would be premature to do so.

On another note, it'd be nice if the description no longer said "the original realwar" because this new rework isn't the original anymore.

Felinwe wrote:Still, stick to your guns and don't flip flop between wanting it removed, wanting it fixed, wanting it to stay approved.

It looks like you're not even clear on what it is you're responding to. You're flip flopping between "aren't you advocating for disapproval" and "you're asking for changes." My post was an address to every side of the debate I could address to, not a post pandering to one side of the issue. Neutrality is an actual position that exists, believe it or not.

Felinwe wrote: they seemed to have added the kinds of things you brought up, the map now doesn't have that big spamfest in the middle anymore, the towers aren't campy anymore, there's plenty of cover and almost a second route through the water. Is that not what you asked for?

Addressing the problem is one thing. Being content with how they addressed it is another. Anyone can still very well spam on top of the floating structure in the water because that area is completely open and there are still angles from the roofs of each tower that can still allow for spamming down to the ground despite the lasers preventing people from standing closer to the edges to do the same exact thing.

I still see fundamental issues existing so no, it really isn't what I asked for. The staff aren't making solid cases or responses by citing play tests as that's observational/anecdotal evidence which are highly subjective and prone to bias.

Felinwe wrote:Let's be real, you're really getting worked up that the staff use a special account for that purpose rather than boosting their own LDRs off fixed updated and improved versions of ancient maps?

Why should a staff-shared account get full ~+7 LDR per approved map just for changing some elements on things they didn't even make themselves? Better yet, if the purpose is to replace maps with improved versions, then there should be no LDR benefit to the staff-shared account as LDR would be pointless to gain. The realwar map is in x death's name yet the credit and LDR technically goes to the account as if the account made the map entirely.

A better solution would be to simply disable LDR gains or hide it overall. No one needs to gain it here. It's silly that this needs to be argued with "it's better than letting staff get LDR" as if it's the best solution there is.

Felinwe wrote:It bumped whoever is at #200 down off the list, which at 12.75 LDR isn't exactly the biggest achievement in the world.

The account is meant as a place to keep reworked maps in one location and is not treated as an entity. It shouldn't take up a spot on a leaderboard as if it were an entity or person. That's common sense. It's not about being #200 or being a great achievement.

Felinwe wrote:Sure it'd be better off if the account had a fixed LDR of 0, or 5, or 10, or whatever number makes you happy, but it's not this "ethical problem".

It's certainly an ethical problem to me. Perhaps not to you. Your opinion doesn't refute mine. I consider an approved map repository account (that's mostly run and spear-headed primarily by one person if map descriptions are to be believed) overtaking people on a list it doesn't belong in simply for carrying out its purpose to be a concern. It's similar to having alt accounts on the same list.

Felinwe wrote:I know you're just stirring shit up, but 17 matches started isn't bad for like 3 days given the dire state of MP

Good accusation. You've essentially done what I said the staff would do. Wonderful, given you've given the typical "defensive staff member" tone I'm used to seeing. Looks like I've successfully begun to "stir shit up" by ringing up posts of this kind and thus my objective is done.

Felinwe wrote:but 90% of unranked realwar players will just continue to play as soon as they see a match or ID named "realwar", no matter the updates to it.

That's because the map freely uses "x death-realwar" as the map ID still. Anyone not aware of any changes would assume they're playing on the original map as soon as they see the ID.

DoomWrath wrote:Especially since all the maps on that account are currently my reworks. It'd be far from fair for me to have that much LDR boost especially when I have no current approved maps anyway.

It's not that different from having an alt gaining LDR boosts if you're the one spear-heading the operation of an account shared with multiple people who aren't even visible in how things are running. The account is really just mostly you but with a supposedly collaborative "purpose" as an excuse and red herring to justify the artificial and unneeded LDR boost.

Felinwe wrote:Let's be real, you're really getting worked up that the staff use a special account for that purpose rather than boosting their own LDRs off fixed updated and improved versions of ancient maps? And come on, skewing the entire level devs list? It bumped whoever is at #200 down off the list, which at 12.75 LDR isn't exactly the biggest achievement in the world. Sure it'd be better off if the account had a fixed LDR of 0, or 5, or 10, or whatever number makes you happy, but it's not this "ethical problem". Admins, maybe look into this <---

Fairer overall to not have it taking the slot, ignore-able or otherwise. I don't think it's a particularly important problem in the grand scheme of things, but it would be nice to have addressed.

Hikarikaze wrote:

DoomWrath wrote:Especially since all the maps on that account are currently my reworks. It'd be far from fair for me to have that much LDR boost especially when I have no current approved maps anyway.

It's not that different from having an alt gaining LDR boosts if you're the one spear-heading the operation of an account shared with multiple people who aren't even visible in how things are running. The account is really just mostly you but with a supposedly collaborative "purpose" as an excuse and red herring to justify the artificial and unneeded LDR boost.

Yes, the intention was collaborative, that's why Eric created the account. Whether or not I'm the main user of it isn't a point I consider important in the slightest. As for the LDR, I have no ability to remove it besides potentially adding disapproved maps to work in counterbalance to the approved maps. I've asked Eric about removing it from the list/removing its LDR, so stay tuned.